Media War

island911 · 10-05-2004, 09:21 PM

It dawns on me that the mainstream press is scared shietless over their diminishing, diluted message.

With all the bloggers, and boards like this, it seems that the mainstream press is feeling ra^ther threatened.

I find myself, and see others here, floating some thoughts here first, then some mainstream press puts together "their" similar/same opinions.
We are out publishing the publishers. Thou' two there credit, when U reed there stuff U don't go krazy over bad readability and icky grammar. . ..as my happen hear on akayshun.

OTOH, the mainstream press pieces usually lack a sence of humor.

--they take themselves very seriously, when spinning their story, or when presenting ra^ther suspicious documents.

At anyrate, this election has been the most interesting ever. Especially this war, over who writes about the war about who gets to run the war against terrorists.

Anyway; networks are trying to out "post" the bloggers. ABC wants to lure people to their website to post. ...control, control, control.

Thoughts

dd74 · 10-05-2004, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by island911

Thoughts

Here's mine: don't drink and post.

island911 · 09:43 PM

cold-meds, actually. Point taken.

edit: Hey. . wait a sec . .. YOU work for a major media organization.

CamB · CamB's Garage

I dunno - I wonder if the blogosphere isn't due to collapse under the weight of its own wank. Honestly, it's pretty incestuous.

This Board at least presents two sides of the story. The mainstream media (generally) treads very seriously down the middle (with apparently a left bias

) or trudges (drugdes?) down the right.

I think we need perspective here - while it might feel like getting your news online from 5,000 different places all at once is "normal" but since the vast, vast majority of the world doesn't do that I think it's time to accept that we (all of us) are fringe.

Even then, I'll trust the media before I trust ANY partisan blog.

djmcmath · 10-06-2004, 05:23 AM

Many years ago, it was predicted that the internet would force standard news sources into obsolescence. Hometown Joe who happened to be near the scene of an important event could provide front-line news faster and more reliably than the standard news channels, claimed the pundits. Thousands of home-grown news sites will spring up, providing all with free access to an overwhelming supply of news and information about their world, unfiltered by any particular mainstream news source.

Hmm, interesting.

Dan

dd74 · 10-06-2004, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by djmcmath
Many years ago, it was predicted that the internet would force standard news sources into obsolescence...

Look at it this way: a subscription to the New York Times for someone in L.A., costs $600 yearly. On the internet, it's free. Yes, obsolescence is the correct word in many respects.

island911 · 10-06-2004, 01:46 PM

Part of the reason I posted this, is that I recently saw a piece on the Kennedy assasination. Because timely info was in such high demand, for the first time the main-steam news papers were no-longer thee source of news information.

the same sort of thing happened to the evening news shows, back during the Gulf war, when CNN left them in the dust.

Now, behold the blog .. ..

ubiquity0 · 10-06-2004, 01:59 PM

I can’t imagine getting all, most or even some ‘news’ from ‘blogs. No matter how biased, corrupt and incompetent the major news sources are, amateur ‘blogs are far worse. Besides, when 90% of their bandwidth is taken up with either photos of Kerry doing something dorky, or Bush juxtaposed with monkeys how useful are they really? They do play a role in keeping major media honest. How would Rather-gate have unfolded without ‘blogs? I imagine the result would have been the same; it just would have panned out over the course of a couple of weeks, not days.

concentric · 10-06-2004, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by djmcmath
Many years ago, it was predicted that the internet would force standard news sources into obsolescence. Hometown Joe who happened to be near the scene of an important event could provide front-line news faster and more reliably than the standard news channels, claimed the pundits. Thousands of home-grown news sites will spring up, providing all with free access to an overwhelming supply of news and information about their world, unfiltered by any particular mainstream news source.

Hmm, interesting.

Dan

It would be better financially for all the companies involved if hard news faded away. That way you don't have to run large reporting organizations and can fill the gaps with more mindless entertainment. Pretty soon the immersivity (adjectival form of immersive, thank you very much) of entertainment will keep interest away from current events anyway....

Why listen to ash-holes argue politics when you can be president of your own virtual world?

On a cheerier note, if we somehow digitize the Library of Congress and have large repositories for raw data such as municipal camera footage and other real-time data sources, you could find out your own news.

JCM

concentric · 10-06-2004, 02:33 PM

An anndendum...
Whenever I hear "blog" I think of "butt-log"

Superman · 10-07-2004, 06:15 AM

I too am not sure what the original question is, so I know folks will be surprized to find that I have a personal opinion or two to contribute anyway.

First, I think it's interesting that the folks who think conspiracy theorists are looney tunes, but that all the world's news organizations are colluding to slant popular opinion away from their candidate. While at the same time publishing polls that show he is the most popular candidate. Oh, except Fox News, which is the one and only objective news source on the planet. Yep, you guys are certainly impressing us with that argument.

And this monkey you are supporting, is hands down, undeniably, the most secretive president in our nation's history. He censors what can be counted in Iraq, and what can be shown, and what can be reported. He keeps lists of his energy industry cronies secret. Everything's secret. The Patriot Act flies in the face of every previous legislative action that allowed citizens the right to know what their government is up to. And then the monkey expects to be treated as a darling by the press? Is this guy on drugs?

SLO-BOB · 10-07-2004, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superman
I too am not sure what the original question is, so I know folks will be surprized to find that I have a personal opinion or two to contribute anyway.

First, I think it's interesting that the folks who think conspiracy theorists are looney tunes, but that all the world's news organizations are colluding to slant popular opinion away from their candidate. While at the same time publishing polls that show he is the most popular candidate. Oh, except Fox News, which is the one and only objective news source on the planet. Yep, you guys are certainly impressing us with that argument.

And this monkey you are supporting, is hands down, undeniably, the most secretive president in our nation's history. He censors what can be counted in Iraq, and what can be shown, and what can be reported. He keeps lists of his energy industry cronies secret. Everything's secret. The Patriot Act flies in the face of every previous legislative action that allowed citizens the right to know what their government is up to. And then the monkey expects to be treated as a darling by the press? Is this guy on drugs?

Well said. You clearly have seen fahrenheit 911-that being among many other resources I'm sure.

As for Island-What WERE you on? I actually found myself defending you to my wife as being more intelligent than your post would indicate.

Bottom line-Bush=Bad American